I presented two tracking reasons/models. You quote my model 1), which is about user tracking for your own sake only, without giving something in return. In other words: There's no direct connection between you selling out what you collect about me and my usage.
You talk about GMail/Facebook, which I presented as another, different example/model, 2). The quote does not apply here.
For these services I trade privacy for usage and I merely wish that the trade would be more transparent so that everyone and his mom can decide if they want to give up these details for your service or not. But - it's at least a "deal" of some sort: You give me something valuable/useful, I have to cope with your privacy invasion.
Yeah if a company is tracking me which results in me gaining nothing and them gaining income, that is quite annoying, I'm not disagreeing that in that case it's wrong. But I still don't think you are harmed in a way that requires such a sweeping piece of legislation. These sorts of rules may land up harming the free services you refer to in model 2).
If there was a way to target just the companies in model 1) without interferring too much in the user experience of all web-users, I'd be for it.
Sure you do; you get to use Gmail and Facebook for free because they generate enough money from ads not to have to charge.
I can understand that there people like yourself that don't want to be tracked, that's cool, but if the majority of people don't care, should the system at least be opt-out? Or left up to the user to use the do-not-track features of browsers?
I'm not saying tracking must be forced on everyone, but this piece of legislation seems like a massive hammer to hit a very tiny nail.